The point is...
If the APS size sensor gives acceptable performance, then a 24x36 mm sensor
designed to the same pixel density and pixel performance IS better. At any
rate, the comment regarding medium format sensors is still valid. Again,
think about it.
Regards,
Bob...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By all means, marry. If you get a good wife, you'll become happy;
if you get a bad one, you'll become a philosopher.
- Socrates
From: "Jack Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Bob, I look at pixels more as grain in film. All else
being equal, a 50 Velvia 120/35 image will yield
greater resolution than the same shot using 200 Gold.
Regardless of format, I assume there would be no limit
to the resolution gains to be realized by using finer
grain film.
Apparently I can't apply this standard to pixels. Nor
can the magazine writer.(?)
I'm wondering at what point does a noise producing
higher pixel count sensor lose its advantage over
another sensor of the same size, but with fewer
pixels.
Jack
--- Bob Blakely <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I understood the point of your (very reasonable)
question, so why be picky?
Truth is, I didn't even notice it and further, I
screw up all the time
myself.
Whatever can be done at one size can be done at most
any size. The cost is
chip yield. The fact that some idiot in a magazine
says that an APS sensor
would contain more tightly packed pixels than would
a 24x36 and so 24x36 is
unnecessary, doesn't mean that it must be that way.
If what the writer said
is true, then there's no point to medium format
digital cameras! Think about
it.
Regards,
Bob...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By all means, marry. If you get a good wife, you'll
become happy;
if you get a bad one, you'll become a philosopher.
- Socrates
From: "Jack Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Bob,
> Thanks for your response and for ignoring my
misuse of
> the word "throws". SHB: "Throes".
> Didn't I see something in a photo magazine about
the
> fact that an APS sensor would contain more tightly
> packed pixels than would a 24x36? Thus, according
to
> the writer, assuming the same pixel count, the
smaller
> sensor would capture and reveal more detail.
> Why do I doubt the assumption?
>
> Jack
>
> --- Bob Blakely <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> There will always be a niche market for film,
even
>> 35mm. Digital will
>> supplant it for most real applications, most
>> importantly in the consumer
>> market where the dollars, euros, pounds, yen,
etc.
>> are, but film still
>> offers some image advantages (or at least claimed
>> advantages), and
>> aficionados will still provide some market,
enough
>> for perhaps two or so
>> small outfits to produce it. The intelligence
>> agencies still use it for best
>> detail and (what's the word?) acuity and will
>> continue to use it for non
>> real time airborne reconnaissance, so someone
will
>> continue making that.
>> Slitting it to 35mm and perforating it is a
small
>> thing, and it can then be
>> sold to those few consumers who still want it.
>> Astronomers will still demand
>> it for some applications, though the format will
be
>> larger, still, it starts
>> out as rolls that can be slit. Why 35mm? Well, in
my
>> opinion it provides the
>> best compromise between versatility (as a
function
>> of size) and quality (as
>> a function of image area). FYI, while I'm sure
that
>> many will not agree,
>> this is the same reason I would prefer a 24x36mm
>> sensor for a 35mm sized
>> camera. As it is with film, so it is with sensors
-
>> the larger the format,
>> the greater quality potential.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Bob...
>>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> By all means, marry. If you get a good wife,
you'll
>> become happy;
>> if you get a bad one, you'll become a
philosopher.
>> - Socrates
>>
>>
>> From: "Jack Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>>
>> > How much longer will starving film cameras
demand
>> 35mm
>> > color pos/neg films be produced? What level of
>> > production and availability would qualify as
"in
>> > production"?
>> > What's the likelihood of film's resuscitation
>> through
>> > some manner of structural breakthrough?
>> > Un-answerable, but care to muse?
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Yahoo! Mail for Mobile
> Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your
mobile phone.
> http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail
>
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
